ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The background of the study was to assess the prevalence of dental caries among school-going children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six thousand eight hundred and ninety school-going children was enrolled. General clinical examination was carried out. Mouth mirror, probe, and explorer were used for carrying out the clinical examination. Over a time span of 6 months, the entire study was completed. All the examiners who performed clinical examination underwent a single-day training program for detecting dental caries. All the participants were seated on straight wooden chairs and were examined clinically. The prevalence of caries was recorded. RESULTS: The prevalence was 26.02%. Among these children with dental caries, 50.25% of the children belonged to the age group of 13-15 years, while the remaining 49.75% of the children belonged to the age group of 9-12 years. Prevalence of dental caries was significantly higher in females (71.11%) in comparison to males. Furthermore, dental caries was significantly more prevalent among participants with toothbrushing frequency of less than once a day (51.20%). CONCLUSION: There is an imperative need for intimating health check-up camps among school-going children.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine (1:200,000) vs 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (1:200,000) during surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was undertaken in 20 patients belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I, of the age group between 18 and 30 years with bilaterally impacted mandibular third molars. Each patient underwent similar surgical procedure. In the first appointment, the patient was randomly selected to receive either 4% articaine or 2% lidocaine (both with epinephrine 1:200,000). Intraoperative and postoperative evaluation was done for both the anesthetic solutions. Following parameters were evaluated: total volume of anesthetic solution used during the surgery, onset of action of the anesthetic agent, duration of anesthesia, duration of postoperative analgesia, incidence, type and severity of adverse reactions, any need to reanesthetize the surgical zone and quality of anesthesia provided by the local anesthetic. Subjective pain evaluation was done with the aid of 100 mm length visual analog scale (VAS) both intraoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: In the present study, 4% articaine was found to have a significantly shorter onset of action than 2% lidocaine. Duration of anesthesia and postoperative analgesia of 4% articaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 was found to be significantly (1.44 and 1.28 times respectively) longer than 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 1:200,000. But no significant difference was found in other parameters. CONCLUSION: 4% articaine in comparison with 2% lidocaine (both with epinephrine 1:200,000) provided a shorter onset of action and longer duration of anesthesia. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: No significant difference was recorded in the anesthetic efficacy between the two solutions.
